Dismissed

Smt. Amari W/O Late Shri Mahadev Ram Gurjar v. Dharmi Chand Gurjar S/Oshri Nanu Ram Gurjar

Rajasthan HC11 Feb 2026CMA/729/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Miscellaneous appeal by dependents of a deceased workman challenging the compensation amount awarded for death in an employment accident. Following the Supreme Court's decision on the scope of Section 30 appeals, the High Court held the income assessment was a finding of fact with no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

None granted; award dated 15-10-2018 affirmed and appeal dismissed.

Smt. Amari W/O Late Shri Mahadev Ram Gurjar Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:6391]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 729/2019

¶4

Smt. Amari W/o Late Shri Mahadev Ram Gurjar, Aged About 31 Years, Appellant No. 2 To 4 Are Minor Through Their Natural Guardina Mother Smt. Amari R/o Village Devariya Jaswantpura Tehsil Masuda Ajmer (Raj)

¶5

Master Rahul S/o Late Shri Mahadev Ram Gurjar, Aged About 11 Years, R/o Village Devariya Jaswantpura Tehsil Masuda Ajmer (Raj)

¶6

Master Dinesh S/o Late Shri Mahadev Ram Gurjar, Aged About 9 Years, R/o Village Devariya Jaswantpura Tehsil Masuda Ajmer (Raj)

¶7

Kumari Priyanka D/o Late Shri Mahadev Ram Gurjar, Aged About 13 Years, R/o Village Devariya Jaswantpura Tehsil Masuda Ajmer (Raj)

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Dharmi Chand Gurjar S/oshri Nanu Ram Gurjar, R/o Chado Ka Badiya Hanutiya Post Hanutiya Tehsil Masuda District Ajmer (Raj)

¶11

National Insurance Company Ltd. Ajmer District Ajmer (Raj), Having Its Regional Office At Lic Building Ambedkar Circle Bhawani Singh Road Jaipur

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s)	: Ms. Shreya Khandal, Adv. Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Tripurari Sarma, Adv.
	Mr.Bhupendra Singh, Adv.

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶15

Judgment / Order

¶16

11/02/2026

¶17

vihykFkhZ&nkosnkjksa dh vksj ls ;g vihy fo}ku U;k;ky; vk;qDr deZpkjh {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e 1923] vtesj ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vtesj }kjk izdj.k la[;k E.C.A.(F)-16/2017 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 15-10-2018 ls

(2 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:6391]

[CMA-729/2019]

O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS] ftlds ek/;e ls nkosnkjksa dks erd egknso jke ds fu;kstu ds nkSjku dkfjr pksVksa ds dkj.k eR;q gksus ds ifj.kkeLo:i dqy 5]81]524@&:i;s izfrdj 12 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt lfgr fnyk;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;kA

¶22

fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ&nkosnkjksa rFkk izR;FkhZ dh cgl lquh x;h] vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA

¶23

fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk fuosnu gS fd e`rd egknso jke ?kVuk ds le; 32 o"khZ; ;qod Fkk] vf/kdj.k }kjk mldh vk; dh x.kuk lE;d :i ls ugha dh xbZ gS] tks izfrdj jkf'k fnykbZ xbZ gS] og vi;kZIr gS rFkk izfrdj jkf'k ;Fkksfpr :i ls c<k;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶24

blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dk U;kf;d fu.kZ; North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha (2019) 11 SCC 514 is'k djrs gq, fuosnu fd;k fd fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk nkosnkjksa dh ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; ij fopkj djus ds mijkar vk; gkfu dh x.kuk dh xbZ gS] ;g rF;ksa ls lacaf/kr gS rFkk fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u bl ekeys esa vUroZfyr ugha gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa vf/kfu;e&1923 dh /kkjk&30 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj ;g vihy iks"k.kh; ugha gSA

¶25

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (Supra) ds iSjk la[;k&9] 10] 11 rFkk 12 fuEukuqlkj gS&

¶26

9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependents of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any

(3 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:6391]

[CMA-729/2019]

insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRs sue/s his employer to claim compensation under the Act.

¶31

10. The afore-mentioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be proved with the aid of evidence. Once they are proved either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as the findings of fact.

¶32

11. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lie only against the specific orders set out in clause (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in first proviso to the Section that the appeal must involve substantial question of law.

¶33

12. In other words, the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is not like a Regular First Appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can be heard both on facts and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case.

¶34

mijksDr U;kf;d fu.kZ; rFkk vf/kfu;e&1923 dh /kkjk 30 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj e`rd dh vk; dk iz'u rF;ksa ls l a caf/kr gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vk; ds laca/k esa lkjoku lk{; ij fopkj gh ugha fd;k gks vkSj mlds vk/kkj ij euekukiw.kZ fu.kZ; gks] ,slh fLFkfr ugha gSA nksuksa i{kksa dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk tks fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k gS] og iw.kZr% fof/klEer gSA

¶35

pwafd bl ekeys esa fof/k dk dksbZ iz'u vUroZfyr ugha gS] vr% ;g vihy [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA mijksDr foospukuqlkj vihyk/khu fu.kZ; fnukad 15-10-2018 dh iqf"V djrs gq, ;g vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gSaA

¶36

vfHkys[k bl vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks izsf"kr fd;k tkosA

¶37

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶38

Murari Lal Sharma /20

Smt. Amari W/O Late Shri Mahadev Ram Gurjar v. Dharmi Chand Gurjar S/Oshri Nanu Ram Gurjar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Amari W/O Late Shri Mahadev Ram Gurjar v. Dharmi Chand Gurjar S/Oshri Nanu Ram Gurjar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Son of Brijmohan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Shivam S/O Shree Girraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhaurilal and Another Vs Gullaram through Lrs and Others

Ramlakhan S/O Ramdev, Vs State of Rajasthan

Abdul Salam S/O Abudl Hameed Vs Abdul Shakoor

Girish Gupta Son of Shri Jagdish Prasad Agarwal, Vs Prahlad Gupta Son of Shri Jagdish Prasad Agarwal